LORJ MAIN PROBLEM WITH LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT IS MARKET NO GOOD AT ADJUSTING NON-ROCK EXTERNALITIES. TRAGEDY OF COMMON CAVE REPEATS FROM MAXIMIZATION OF SHORT TERM ROCK PROFIT INSTEAD OF SUSTAINABLE ROCK DEVELOPMENT.

SmackLT:Mercutio74: One thing I love about this thread is how people will add 1 to the total amount of comments to express their disgust that the comment count is so high. Also, anyone who thinks this thread is more about libertarianism vs reality than it is about spontaneous group caveman language is probably not looking carefully enough at the Fark demographic.

Le Roi en Jaune:LORJ MAIN PROBLEM WITH LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT IS MARKET NO GOOD AT ADJUSTING NON-ROCK EXTERNALITIES. TRAGEDY OF COMMON CAVE REPEATS FROM MAXIMIZATION OF SHORT TERM ROCK PROFIT INSTEAD OF SUSTAINABLE ROCK DEVELOPMENT.

Aldon:On Obamacare: it's not a socialist policy, this is a misconception. Even from a libertarian standpoint, Obamacare isfarworse than state healthcare... because state healthcare is government providing a service. Governments already do this, we're just arguing which services they should and shouldn't provide.

Again, you are taking a liberal point of view. Any liberal would have wrote the same about Obamacare, yet currently the majority of libertarians vote with and agree with conservatives. Frankly on most every subject (especially Healthcare) you listed today, you agree with the liberal point of view, and every "conservative" would opposed to your views. So what do you find yourself voting for more, people who call themselves conservative, or people that call themselves moderate or liberal?

I want to quibble with this, but let me explain first where I'm coming from.

Governments provide services. Unless one is an anarchist, it's what they do. Libertarians (and myself) believe the most important services protect individual freedoms, liberty, collective freedoms, and free-market-dynamics so this would include contract law and so forth. In short, the Federal Government is there to make sure cops don't ransack your home without a warrant, corporations don't dump toxic waste that leaks onto your property, banks don't just steal your money and say "whoops," and when you make a contract with someone if they don't live up to their end there is some kind of recourse. Again, I'm not an anarchist. Liberals and conservatives each believe that different services are the important thing. Then government needs to tax to provide these services, and there is disagreement where those taxes should come from. And I'm perfectly fine with reasonable people disagreeing where governments should tax, and what services should government provide.

Obamcare is so deadly because it's not a service. It compels you to purchase healthcare from a provide provider. It's like... allowing a corporation to tax you. Can you see how this is a completely different proposition?

So, I am against federal government run healthcare. I don't believe we should pay a federal tax and get a heathcare card and go to clinics set up by the government for treatment. But I also see how a perfectly reasonable person might think this is a service federal government should provide. With Obamacare, I don't see how any reasonable person could want this (unless you own an insurance or pharmaceutical company that has leverage to get government contracts). Do you see what I'm saying?

I haven't voted in Federal elections since 2000, because the only people on the ballot are cynical career politicians that seem to have no internally consistent ideology. Lets take Keynesian economics as an example. Basically, you borrow during a weak economy (and don't waste the money on dumb things) and then once your economy is strong you pay off that debt. Do you see any self-styled liberal politician doing this since Clinton? No... it's borrow during a weak economy, borrow more during a strong economy... and calling THAT Keynesian. I'm not a Keynesian but I would vote for an actual Keynesian over a that nonsense, because at least it's within the realm of rational thought.

Last local election I voted in, it was L, G or I... based on the candidate. We're headed off a cliff, and the lesser of two evils isn't going to cut it.

How perverse is this?Democrats: lets borrow money during both strong and weak economies to give handouts to wall-street/banks, insurance companies, and (some) energy companies. Then we'll throw a very small bone to the poor.Republicans: lets borrow money during both strong and weak economies to give handouts to wall-street/banks, military contractors, and (other) energy companies. Then we'll tell the middle class that very small bone the Democrats threw to the poor is what's destroying their jobs.

Honestly. Calling this out doesn't make me less of a Libertarian. At this point, if I thought someone was an actual liberal or an actual conservative with consistent logic that wasn't cherry-picked to justify paying off lobbyists I would probably vote for him/her. But our politicians don't believe in anything other than business as usual, which is screwing us as usual.

For an ideology that you guys claim to be a joke with no significance in society, its strange how this has 10-15 times more comments than other stories. You statists had to get together and reassure one another that the big, bad libertarians would never take over and then not bother you?

danwinkler:For an ideology that you guys claim to be a joke with no significance in society, its strange how this has 10-15 times more comments than other stories. You statists had to get together and reassure one another that the big, bad libertarians would never take over and then not bother you?

YOU NOT UNDERSTAND CONCEPT OF FUN EITHER, KINDA LIKE BUNNYGOD, WHO MAUG ATE.

gameshowhost:M00 NOT UNDERSTAND GAME THEORY AND "MINIMIZE LOSS" STRATEGY. VOTE FOR NEVER-WINNER ONLY HELP WORST CANDIDATE.

Oh, I understand game theory. But I believe the political parties are gaming the game theory by deliberately offering up worse and worse (read: more beholden to special interests) candidates. Game theory assumes the officiator of the game is a neutral process. If you pick A and the other guy picks A, you get $5.This is game theory where the researchers present themselves as opponents, but then work together to change the game after you've made your choice.

For example, Obama's victory has helped the Republican party politically and financially. That Mitt Romney was even on the ticket has helped the Democratic politicians, he was so bad. I will even go as far as to say Republicans would rather have an Obama in the White House than a fiscally responsible Republican that might scale back executive power.

There are two sides, but it's not R v D. Its us (voters) vs government. If you vote for the establishment candidate, you lose every time. Obama's marketing was genius because he presented himself in 2008 as anti-establishment, but ended up governing like Bush.

m00:gameshowhost: M00 NOT UNDERSTAND GAME THEORY AND "MINIMIZE LOSS" STRATEGY. VOTE FOR NEVER-WINNER ONLY HELP WORST CANDIDATE.

Oh, I understand game theory. But I believe the political parties are gaming the game theory by deliberately offering up worse and worse (read: more beholden to special interests) candidates. Game theory assumes the officiator of the game is a neutral process. If you pick A and the other guy picks A, you get $5.This is game theory where the researchers present themselves as opponents, but then work together to change the game after you've made your choice.

For example, Obama's victory has helped the Republican party politically and financially. That Mitt Romney was even on the ticket has helped the Democratic politicians, he was so bad. I will even go as far as to say Republicans would rather have an Obama in the White House than a fiscally responsible Republican that might scale back executive power.

There are two sides, but it's not R v D. Its us (voters) vs government. If you vote for the establishment candidate, you lose every time. Obama's marketing was genius because he presented himself in 2008 as anti-establishment, but ended up governing like Bush.

gameshowhost:m00: gameshowhost: M00 NOT UNDERSTAND GAME THEORY AND "MINIMIZE LOSS" STRATEGY. VOTE FOR NEVER-WINNER ONLY HELP WORST CANDIDATE.

Oh, I understand game theory. But I believe the political parties are gaming the game theory by deliberately offering up worse and worse (read: more beholden to special interests) candidates. Game theory assumes the officiator of the game is a neutral process. If you pick A and the other guy picks A, you get $5.This is game theory where the researchers present themselves as opponents, but then work together to change the game after you've made your choice.

For example, Obama's victory has helped the Republican party politically and financially. That Mitt Romney was even on the ticket has helped the Democratic politicians, he was so bad. I will even go as far as to say Republicans would rather have an Obama in the White House than a fiscally responsible Republican that might scale back executive power.

There are two sides, but it's not R v D. Its us (voters) vs government. If you vote for the establishment candidate, you lose every time. Obama's marketing was genius because he presented himself in 2008 as anti-establishment, but ended up governing like Bush.

Oh, I understand game theory. But I believe the political parties are gaming the game theory by deliberately offering up worse and worse (read: more beholden to special interests) candidates. Game theory assumes the officiator of the game is a neutral process. If you pick A and the other guy picks A, you get $5.This is game theory where the researchers present themselves as opponents, but then work together to change the game after you've made your choice.

There are two sides, but it's not R v D. Its us (voters) vs government. If you vote for the establishment candidate, you lose every time. Obama's marketing was genius because he presented himself in 2008 as anti-establishment, but ended up governing like Bush.

LORJ SAY M00 MAKE COMMON MISTAKE. THIRD PARTY FAIL BUILD GROUND GAME.MUST BE LIKE GREEN PARTY IN GER-MAN TRIBE. SMALL CAVE CHIEFS AND WOLFDOG CATCHERS BEFORE SEEKING TO BE BIG CHIEF.

InmanRoshi:RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost. The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density. I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

So basically a 3rd world shiate hole? Gotcha.

What's your alternative:?

How about the opposite of Calcutta? Ever been there? You would love it.

No stupid government forcing you to pay for things like community housing, so the poor just sleep and shiat in the streets literally turning the entire city into a gigantic cesspool. No Obamacare, so the sick and dying just decompose out in the sun. No public policy, so malaria and AIDS just runs rampant. No major public projects, so limited public transportation leaving 15 million people living in a congested polluted mess.

Just everyone out there living their own lives, just totally free from the tyranny of government thugs.

That's a good start. Also, sounds like a good business opportunity to clean things up.

And to the surprise of no one, we once again find "libertarianism" being used as a thinly veiled disguise for sociopathy.

You'll be back tomorrow to biatch about corporate welfare. Businesses big and small, as well as people should have to learn to be self reliant.

RobertBruce:InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost. The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density. I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

So basically a 3rd world shiate hole? Gotcha.

What's your alternative:?

How about the opposite of Calcutta? Ever been there? You would love it.

No stupid government forcing you to pay for things like community housing, so the poor just sleep and shiat in the streets literally turning the entire city into a gigantic cesspool. No Obamacare, so the sick and dying just decompose out in the sun. No public policy, so malaria and AIDS just runs rampant. No major public projects, so limited public transportation leaving 15 million people living in a congested polluted mess.

Just everyone out there living their own lives, just totally free from the tyranny of government thugs.

That's a good start. Also, sounds like a good business opportunity to clean things up.

And to the surprise of no one, we once again find "libertarianism" being used as a thinly veiled disguise for sociopathy.

You'll be back tomorrow to biatch about corporate welfare. Businesses big and small, as well as people should have to learn to be self reliant.

and in less than 3 posts, you utterly destroyed all of the knowledge and insight that cybrwzrd and many others have tried to impart on this (admittedly derailed) conversation. For every myth that they tried to dispel about libertarians, objectivists, and the like, you just reincarnated them as zombies.

Well, I think real reason neither the Democrats nor Republicans are seriously trying to reverse Citizens United as is it pumps so much money into the system that even local council and dog catcher positions become untenable for 3rd parties. It's scary when you make a list of where the two parties take similar courses of actions (the rhetoric will be different though).

/In seriousness: THIS is why I keep coming back here, y'all are nuts and goofs, but all right folks. Thanks for this: we needed it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you are perhaps a smelly, ill tempered, and sometimes inappropriate bunch of ingrates, asshats, pervs and malcontents, but that's why I like y'all.

COMALite J:the whole concept of "States' Rights" is a false concept right from the get-go. States don't have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Only Natural Persons (individually or collectively as "the People") have, or can have, Rights!

No one has any Rights.

Rights do not exist. You can only do things so long as others let you.

m00:So, I am against federal government run healthcare. I don't believe we should pay a federal tax and get a heathcare card and go to clinics set up by the government for treatment. But I also see how a perfectly reasonable person might think this is a service federal government should provide. With Obamacare, I don't see how any reasonable person could want this (unless you own an insurance or pharmaceutical company that has leverage to get government contracts). Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't understand your point, your definition of libertarianism on this subject goes against all of modern libertarian economic theory. Partial market participation (Obamacare) would at least be equal to if not better than total government takeover of the health care industry to modern libertarian philosophy. In Obamacare there is a least a competitive market within the constraints of the system.

So you have your own definition of libertarianism, it doesn't sound like a very consistant philosophy in my opinion. I guess you would conveniently claim no country has even come close of trying your libertarian system because you continually dodge the question of an example of libertarianism working in the real world.

I'm a reasonable person, so far Obamacare (without even being fully implemented yet) has meant lower insurance premiums projected for next year, I have no fear that my pre-existing condition son will be dropped from insurance coverage and the last three years my insurance has not increased in price (unlike the previous three years). Will it be the best solution? I dunno, but it already kicks the ass of the previous system of taxpayers paying for freeloaders using the emergency room and insurance companies and hospitals having free reign of a market that literally means life or death of people... I'm sure there will be many flaws, but that is to be expected, just like anything else it will need to be continually improved. It is easy to say something sucks, when you (libertarians) didn't come to the table with any solutions when asked to participate in the debate.

IF YOU HAVE MATE PROBLEMS OOK FEEL BAD FOR YOU YOUNG ONE OOK HAVE 99 PROBLEMS, ANGRY WOMAN NOT ONEOOK GOT ROCK PATROL OUT ON AXE PATROL TRYING TO MAKE SURE OOK'S CAIRN IS CLOSED CAVE CRITICS SAY OOK IS "ROCKS PELTS MATES" OOK FROM THE CAVE, WHAT STUPID FACTS YOU STATE IF YOU GREW UP WITH HOLES IN THE SOLES OF YOUR TOES YOU'D CELEBRATE THE MINUTE YOU CAN EAT ROASTED MOLES OOK LIKE fark CRITICS YOU CAN KISS OOK'S ASSHOLE IF YOU DON'T LIKE LYRICS YOU CAN WAIT TILL IT OVER GOT MEAT WITH HOWLER CHIEFS IF OOK DON'T SING THEY SHOW THEY DON'T SING OOK'shiatS WELL OOK DON'T GIVE A shiat SO RAP CAVE ETCHINGS TRY AND USE MY HAIRY ASS SO TRADERS CAN GIVE ETCHERS MORE ROCKS FOR ADS...MATERS OOK DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU TAKE OOK AS OR UNDERSTAND SMART THAT OOK HAS OOK FROM NAKED TO RAGS CAVEMAN OOK AIN'T DUMB OOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE

IF YOU HAVE CAVEGIRL PROBLEMS OOK FEELS BAD FOR YOU YOUNG ONEOOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE

THE YEAR IS... WHAT IS YEAR? OOK'S SACK IS RAW,LOOK BEHIND IT IS TRIBE ELDERS farkIN LAW,OOK GOT TWO CHOICES YALL PULL OVER MY DINOSAUROR BOUNCE ON THE DOUBLE PUT THE DINO LEGS TO THE FLOORNOW OOK AIN'T TRYING TO SEE NO VALLEY CHASE WITH OOKPLUS OOK HAVE A FEW ROCKS, OOK CAN FIGHT THESE MOOKS,SO OOK PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROADAND OOK HEARD "YOUNGLING DO YOU KNOW WHY STOPPING YOU FOR?"CAUSE OOK YOUNG AND OOK CRO-MAGNON AND OOK'S BROW REAL LOW?DO OOK LOOK LIKE WIZARD, OOK DON'T KNOW!AM OOK UNDER ARREST OR SHOULD OOK GUESS SOME MORE?"WELL YOU WAS DOING FIVE IN A PLACE THAT'S FOURDINO RIDER BADGE AND REGISTRATION AND STEP OFF THE DINOSAURARE YOU CARRYING AXE I KNOW A LOT OF YOU ARE"OOK AIN'T STEPPING OUT OF shiat, OOK'S THINGS ARE LEGIT"DO YOU MIND IF ME LOOK AROUND YOUR DINOSAUR A LITTLE BIT?"WELL OOK'S SACK IS TIED UP SO IS OOK'S OTHER SACKAND OOK KNOW TRIBE'S CODE, SO YOU GOING TO NEED ELDER'S PERMISSION FOR THAT"AREN'T YOU SHARP AS A THORN SOME TYPE OF ARGUER OR SOMETHING?"OR SOMEBODY IMPORTANT OR SOMETHING?"NAH OOK AIN'T PASSED ELDER TEST BUT OOK KNOW A LITTLE BITENOUGH THAT YOU WON'T TABOO BY SEARCHING OOK'S shiat"WE'LL SEE HOW SMART YOU ARE WHEN WOLFDOGS COME"OOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONEHIT OOK!

NOW ONCE UPON A MOON NOT LONG AGOA CAVEMAN LIKE OOK HAD TO STRONG ARM A CAVEHOTHIS IS NOT CAVEHOE LIKE IN SENSE OF HAVING A WETHOLEBUT A WETHOLE HAVING NO SKY-CHIEF PUNISHED SENSE, TRY AND PUSH MEOOK TRY TO IGNORE HIM AND TALK TO GREAT SKY CHIEFPRAY FOR HIM, SOME FOOLS JUST LOVE TO MAKE GRIEF,YOU KNOW THE TYPE LOUD AS AN AVALANCHEBUT WOULDN'T BUST A TWIG IN BIG FIGHT WITH BRANCHHE AND HIS BOYS GOING TO BE YAPPING TO CAVE CAPTAINAND THERE OOK GO TRAPPED IN THE SHAME CAVE AGAINBACK THROUGH CAVE SYSTEM WITH RIFF RAFF AGAINMUSHROOM FIENDS ON CAVE FLOOR SCRATCHING AGAINSMOKE SIGNALLERS WITH SMOKE BLANKETS SNAPPING THEMELDER TRIED TO GIVE A CAVEMAN THE SHAFT AGAINMANY PEBBLES NEEDED FOR BAIL CAUSE I'M CRO-MAGNONALL BECAUSE THIS FOOL WAS HARASSING THEMTRYING TO PLAY THE BOY LIKES HE WAS SUGAR CANE STEMBUT NOTHING SWEET ABOUT HOW I HOLD MY ROCKOOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS BEING FEMALE WOLFDOG OOK NOTHIT OOK

Aldon:m00: So, I am against federal government run healthcare. I don't believe we should pay a federal tax and get a heathcare card and go to clinics set up by the government for treatment. But I also see how a perfectly reasonable person might think this is a service federal government should provide. With Obamacare, I don't see how any reasonable person could want this (unless you own an insurance or pharmaceutical company that has leverage to get government contracts). Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't understand your point, your definition of libertarianism on this subject goes against all of modern libertarian economic theory. Partial market participation (Obamacare) would at least be equal to if not better than total government takeover of the health care industry to modern libertarian philosophy. In Obamacare there is a least a competitive market within the constraints of the system.

So you have your own definition of libertarianism, it doesn't sound like a very consistant philosophy in my opinion. I guess you would conveniently claim no country has even come close of trying your libertarian system because you continually dodge the question of an example of libertarianism working in the real world.

I'm a reasonable person, so far Obamacare (without even being fully implemented yet) has meant lower insurance premiums projected for next year, I have no fear that my pre-existing condition son will be dropped from insurance coverage and the last three years my insurance has not increased in price (unlike the previous three years). Will it be the best solution? I dunno, but it already kicks the ass of the previous system of taxpayers paying for freeloaders using the emergency room and insurance companies and hospitals having free reign of a market that literally means life or death of people... I'm sure there will be many flaws, but that is to be expected, just like anything else it will need to be continually improved. It is easy to say something sucks, when ...

Alright. How about criminalizing lobbyist money. How about either a pure socialist healthcare system, or a pure pay as you go free market system. I prefer the socialist method as it removes profit driven by human suffering.

m00:Zerochance: Yes , because Republicans have yielded absolutely no power in the last ten years.

So you're saying that despite a Democrat controlled Senate and a two-term Democratic President, all of the NSA stuff (even the new powers granted under Obama) and all of the drone stuff, and all of the expansion of executive power... that's Republican's fault. In 2006 when Democrats took control of BOTH the House AND the Senate... unbalanced budget, war on drugs, corporate handouts... Republicans fault.

I got that right?

You seem to think the Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed and that they don't have some seriously embarrassing right -wing members from the south and and particularly in the state of Michigan.

But by all means, try to make it look like transitioning from the oppressive corporate-military industrial complex ideology is easy work.

/In seriousness: THIS is why I keep coming back here, y'all are nuts and goofs, but all right folks. Thanks for this: we needed it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you are perhaps a smelly, ill tempered, and sometimes inappropriate bunch of ingrates, asshats, pervs and malcontents, but that's why I like y'all.

I appreciate the fact that the greened link was so inanely stupid, it made more sense to devolve into neolithic-speak to mock it.

I wish I could've thrown in on this thread earlier but my crazy day at work got in the way. Ah well, I got a few laughs reading back .Thanks guys. :D

If Romneycare is so horrible and dangerous, why didn't anyone make a single peep about it when the Republicans thought it up in the 90's? Or when Romney installed it in Massachusetts? It was only when Obama liked it so much that he decided to make it national without any changes is when everyone shiat themselves and started crying. Just like with so many other things that they liked or didn't care about until the black Democrat president looks at it.

Remember when Romney promised to destroy "Obamacare" when he became president? Then put it right back up, but since he did it it would be amazing and holy and right because a white Republican did it?

Keizer_Ghidorah:If Romneycare is so horrible and dangerous, why didn't anyone make a single peep about it when the Republicans thought it up in the 90's? Or when Romney installed it in Massachusetts? It was only when Obama liked it so much that he decided to make it national without any changes is when everyone shiat themselves and started crying. Just like with so many other things that they liked or didn't care about until the black Democrat president looks at it.

Remember when Romney promised to destroy "Obamacare" when he became president? Then put it right back up, but since he did it it would be amazing and holy and right because a white Republican did it?

Is the idea that each person should have the right to make their own decisions and choices, unless they cause harm to others, a bad thing?

The thread is mostly dead, so I suppose I can be a little bit serious. Ideals are not necessarily bad in their own right. The problem with any political (or religious, or economic, or etc.) ideal arises from the fact that it is based on a desire for the world to be other than it is. The libertarian ideal is predicated on the belief (first) that all humans are equally capable of taking care of their own interests, (second,) that all humans are capable of determining when they are causing harm to others (and third), that all humans are sufficiently compassionate that they would refrain from causing harm if they knew about the consequences of their actions.

The first assumption is contradicted by the evidence. There are people who are simply not intellectually or physically capable of providing for themselves. People with physical handicaps or severe injuries cannot "go it alone" and expect to survive. The third assumption is contradicted by the existence of sociopaths. While rare, they do exist, and the libertarian ideal that people would avoid harming others by choice simply can't account for them.

The second assumption is the big one. In a simple agrarian or hunter/gatherer society, an individual's actions typically have only local consequences, so we see the effects of our actions on our neighbors. In a society like that, individuals might have a close enough approximation to "perfect knowledge" of the consequences of their actions to actually be able to make the right decision. However, in an industrialized economy, that degree of knowledge is simply not possible.

An example I used last time the subject came up is the effects of logging on salmon fisheries. Here in the Pacific Northwest, salmon spawn in small rivers, far inland, but when the spawn reach adulthood, they migrate hundreds of miles to the ocean, where they are caught by fishermen. The spawning streams require forest cover in order to remain cool and clear, for nutrients to grow for the fry to eat until they reach 1 to 3 years old and migrate out to sea. It's in the best interest of the fishermen that the forests around those streams be left un-cut. However, the fishermen live hundreds of miles away, and the people who live close to the streams have competing interests. It is in their interest that the forests are cut down, first to sell the lumber, and second, to expand farmland to feed the local population.

The people who live near the stream will certainly want to cooperate with their neighbors, and clearing the forest is in their best interest and in the best interest of everyone they know. However, it has a devastating effect on the success of the fishermen who live far away and who are unknown to the farmers. The farmers and fishermen never meet each other, so the ideal of "compassion" is ruled out just by the fact of distance, but their actions have profound effects on each other's success. When one's actions have non-local effects, it is simply not possible for an individual to have the kind of knowledge of the consequences that would allow him/her to make an informed decision about whether or not s/he was harming someone else. In the absence of that type of information, the ideal "make your own choices unless it harms someone else" is simply impossible.

The problem is what economists call "the Tragedy of the Commons." It is in the best interest of all that shared resources not be depleted, but it is in the best interest of each rational actor to act according to his/her own self-interest to use as much of the shared resources for personal gain as possible.

So far, the only way humans have found to protect the commons is the institution of a centralized decision-making authority that is socially recognized as having the legitimate power to limit people's choices (i.e. a government that can restrict individual rights). The only alternative I can imagine would require us to change human nature to fit the ideal, rather than adjusting the ideal to fit human nature.

That's the practical problem with ideals. What seems perfectly reasonable on paper doesn't always correspond to the world around us.